The complaint states that "AspenTech is a developer and
worldwide supplier of manufacturing, engineering, and supply chain simulation
computer software, including non-linear process engineering simulation software
used by the refining, oil & gas, petrochemical, specialty chemical, air
separation, pharmaceutical, fine chemical and other process manufacturing
industries and by engineering and construction companies to support those
industries."

The complaint further states that before its acquisition by AspenTech,
"Hyprotech was a
wholly-owned operating division of AEA Technology plc. ... Hyprotech had been
a developer and worldwide supplier
of manufacturing, engineering and supply chain simulation computer software,
including nonlinear process engineering simulation software used by the
refining, oil & gas, petrochemical, specialty chemical, air separation,
pharmaceutical, fine chemical and other process manufacturing industries and by
engineering and construction companies to support those industries."

The complaint states that AspenTech acquire Hyprotech on or about May 31,
2002, in a transaction that was not
reportable under the Hart Scott Rodino Act.

The FTC alleges that prior to the acquisition, "AspenTech and Hyprotech were direct
and actual competitors" in various software markets, and that the acquisition
created a worldwide dominant firm in these markets, and is anticompetitive.

The FTC alleges that the acquisition violates Section 7 of the Clayton Act,
15 U.S.C. § 18. It
seeks rescission of the consummated transaction.

David McQuillin, P/CEO of AspenTech, stated in a
release that "We do not agree with the FTC’s assertions but,
on the contrary, are confident that the acquisition has brought
significant benefits to our customers and is not anticompetitive
... Over the past year we have worked closely with our customers
to develop new innovations that would have been impossible prior
to the merger. We will continue to bring these new innovations
to market and fulfill our customers’ expectations promised by
the merger. We believe a vigorous defense against the
allegations of the complaint is in the best interests of our
customers and our shareholders and that is what we intend to
do."

The settlement provides for a civil penalty of $2.25 Billion, to be satisfied
by payment of $500 Million in cash and by transfer of common stock in the
reorganized company having a value of $250 Million to a distribution agent to be
appointed by the District Court, on the effective date of the plan of
reorganization.

On July 7, 2003, the U.S. District Court (SDNY)
issued issued its Opinion and Order approving the settlement. See, story titled
"District Court Approves SEC Settlement with WorldCom" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert
No. 693, July 8, 2003.

Stasia Kelly, MCI WorldCom's newly appointed General
Counsel, stated in a
release that "Today's ruling represents a key milestone as MCI moves toward emergence from
Chapter 11 protection. It represents additional validation of all the positive
steps the company has taken over the past year to both put its house in order
and establish itself as a leader in good corporate governance. We look forward
now to completing our confirmation hearing and emerging from Chapter 11
protection."

Cathi Cooper, and others who have participated in IBM Personal Pension Plan,
are the plaintiffs in this action. IBM's Pension
Credit Formula (PCF), under which participants accrue a normal retirement
benefit payable in the form of a life annuity commencing at age 65, is based on
the number of "base points", which is determined by the employee's age in the
year worked. Plaintiffs assert that this discriminates on the basis of age. That
is, they assert that IBM's PCF causes an older employee to receive a lower rate
of benefit accrual than an younger employee.

Cooper and others filed a complaint in U.S. District Court against The IBM
Personal Pension Plan and IBM Corporation alleging that its pension plan violates
the age discrimination provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA), which is codified at 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1461.

The District Court granted summary judgment to plaintiffs. IBM issued a release
in which it stated that "IBM disagrees with the district
court's ruling and believes that it will prevail on appeal. IBM's pension plan
does not discriminate on the basis of age."

8/6. Judge Richard
Posner of the U.S. Court of Appeals
(7thCir) issued a solo
opinion
[7 pages in PDF] in Voices for Choices v. Illinois Bell Telephone.
This case is an appeal from a District Court decision which held that portions
of the state of Illinois's Public Utilities Act are preempted by
Section 251 of the
Communications Act, pertaining to interconnection. However, this opinion
does not address the merits of the appeal. Rather, it is an opinion explaining
his reasons for refusing to accept two
amicus curiae briefs. The Judge could have accepted the briefs, and then ignored
them. But instead, he used this case as a vehicle for comparing and contrasting
the natures of the legislative and judicial processes, and explaining the
appropriate and inappropriate uses of amicus briefs. In short, ordinarily
individual legislators and interests groups should not submit amicus
briefs.

The Defendants below, and the appellants before the Seventh
Circuit, are Illinois Bell Telephone Company, and other SBC companies. They
filed an appeal brief.

Judge Posner first listed several general reasons why a court might not
accept amicus briefs: "judges have heavy
caseloads and therefore need to minimize extraneous reading; amicus briefs,
often solicited by parties, may be used to make an end run around court-imposed
limitations on the length of parties' briefs; the time and other resources
required for the preparation and study of, and response to, amicus briefs drive
up the cost of litigation; and the filing of an amicus brief is often an attempt
to inject interest group politics into the federal appeals process."

He then explained the nature of the legislative and judicial processes.
"The legislative process is democratic, and so legislators have an entirely
legitimate interest in determining how interest groups and influential constituents
view a proposed statute. Statutes pass because there is more political muscle behind
than in front of them, not because they are
``wise´´ or ``just,´´ though they may be. The judicial process, in contrast, though
``political´´ in a sense when judges are asked to decide cases that conventional legal
materials, such as statutory and constitutional texts and binding precedent, leave
undetermined, so that some mixture of judges' values, temperament, ideology,
experiences, and even emotions is likely to determine the outcome, is not democratic
in the sense of basing decision on the voting or campaign-financing power of
constituents and interest groups. An appeal should therefore not resemble a
congressional hearing."

He continued that "The fact that powerful public officials or business or
labor organizations support or oppose an appeal is a datum that is irrelevant to
judicial decision making, except in a few cases, of which this not one, in which
the position of a nonparty has legal significance. And even in those cases the
position can usually be conveyed by a letter or affidavit more concisely and
authoritatively than by a brief."

He concluded that "No matter who a would-be amicus curiae is, therefore, the
criterion for deciding whether to permit the filing of an amicus brief should be
the same: whether the brief will assist the judges by presenting ideas,
arguments, theories, insights, facts, or data that are not to be found in the
parties’ briefs. The criterion is more likely to be satisfied in a case in which
a party is inadequately represented; or in which the would-be amicus has a
direct interest in another case that may be materially affected by a decision in
this case; or in which the amicus has a unique perspective or specific
information that can assist the court beyond what the parties can provide."

He reviewed the amicus briefs, and found that they are largely redundant of
the SBC brief. "Essentially, the proposed amicus briefs merely announce the
``vote´´ of the amici on the decision of the appeal. But, as I have been at pains
to emphasize in contrasting the legislative and judicial processes, they have no vote."

This case is Voices for Choices, et al. v. Illinois Bell Telephone Co., et
al., Nos. 03-2735 and 03-2766, appeals
from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division, Judge Charles Kocoras presiding, D.C. Nos. 03-3290 and 03-3643.

Judge
Posner has addressed amicus briefs before. See, his
opinion in John Ryan
v. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 125 F.3d 1062 (7thCir. 1997). He
wrote that "amicus curiae" means "friend of the court, not friend of a party",
and that "We are beyond the original meaning now; an adversary role of an amicus
curiae has become accepted".

He also gave a
lecture in Washington DC in November of 2002 in which he discussed the
filing of amicus curiae briefs with the Supreme Court in intellectual property
cases. He stated that "Although an amicus curiae brief can be filed by an
individual, most are filed either by organizations, or by individuals who are
representatives of organizations. They may be pretending to be real flesh and
blood human beings. So, I think amicus curiae brief practice provides some clue
to the roll of interest groups in the area of law."

Judge Posner was reviewing amicus briefs as possible empirical evidence in support of
his public choice theory based explanation for what he saw as a large expansion
of intellectual property protections in the last 20 years. He continued that
"since 1980 the Supreme Court has decided 30 intellectual property cases in
which amicus curiae briefs were filed, and which there was an issue of, a
substantive issue of intellectual property, rather than a procedural or
jurisdictional issue that would be peripheral to, of peripheral interest to the
intellectual property. And now, there is a 31st case, the Eldred case,
which is pending in the Supreme Court. And in these 31 cases, including
Eldred, a total of 276 amicus curiae briefs supporting or opposing
intellectual property protection were filed, and a pretty healthy majority, 154
out of the 276, almost 60 percent, support intellectual property rights. But it
turns out that this imbalance in favor of intellectual property, which you would
sort of expect from this asymmetry of appropriability that I have been
emphasizing, is actually due entirely to the 11 patent cases in my 31 case
sample, where 82 briefs were filed in support of validity, or other claim of the
patentee, and only 48 against. In the other cases the score is 72 in support of
intellectual property rights, and 74 against. So, basically, 50 50. And, in the
Eldred case itself, despite the enormous majority by which the Sony Bono Act,
the Act challenged in the case, passed Congress, 36 amicus curiae briefs were
filed, and 18 are in support of the constitutionality of the Bono Act, and the
other 18 are opposed."

He added that "that interest group pressure is not always necessary to get
legislation passed. It is certainly not necessary to get judges to adopt a
particular position."

What is
notable about this analysis is that Judge Posner examined interest group
participation in the Courts as possible evidence in support of a public choice
explanation of law making that encompasses the judicial process. Thus, he examined the
judicial process (and its interest group amici), as though it may operate like
the legislative process (and its interest group lobbyists). In contrast, in his
Voices for Choices and John Ryan
opinions, Posner argued that the judicial process should not operate like the
legislative process.

More Court Opinions

8/7. The California Court of Appeal issued its
opinion
[MS Word] in Sargent Fletcher v. Able Corp., a case regarding the burden of
proof and the burden of producing evidence in a misappropriation of trade
secrets case brought under the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA). This
is Sargent Fletcher, Inc. v. Able Corporation, No. B145831, an appeal
from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Judge Harold Cherness presiding,
Super. Ct. No. KC025385.

8/7. The U.S.
Court of Appeals (FedCir) issued its split
opinion [MS Word] in
HP v. Mustek, a patent infringement case involving optical
scanner technology. This is Hewlett Packard Company v. Mustek Systems, Inc.
and Mustek, Inc., Nos. 02-1372, 02-1395, and 02-1465, appeals from the
U.S.
District Court (SDCal), Judge Robert Whaley presiding.

8/1. The U.S.
Court of Appeals (7thCir) issued its
opinion [15 pages in PDF] in Berger v. Xerox, modifying and
affirming the holding of the U.S.
District Court (SDIll) that Xerox's pension plan violates the ERISA. This
case is David Berger and Gerry Tsupros v. Xerox Corporation Retirement Income
Guarantee Plan, No. 02-3674, an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois, D.C. No. 00-584-DRH, Judge David Herndon
presiding.

FCC and NTIA Announce
Timetable for Implementation of WRC-03 Final Acts

The FCC plans, among other things, to issue, this
year, its Report and Order in its NPRM regarding making more spectrum available
for unlicensed devices, such as Wi-Fi. The FCC also plans to issue this year a
Report and Order allocating spectrum for broadband internet access by passengers and crew
on commercial aircraft.

The release states that "Under the WRC-03 Implementation Plan, the FCC, in
coordination with NTIA, plans to consider the results of WRC-03 in several key
proceedings". It then states that during the "Fourth Quarter 2003" it plans to
consider "Revisions of Parts 2 and 15 of the Commission's rules to permit
Unlicensed National Information Infrastructure (U‑NII) devices in the 5 GHz band
-- Report and Order". It also states that its fourth quarter plans include
"Extension of the allocation to the mobile-satellite service (Earth-to-space) on
a secondary basis in the band 14-14.5 GHz to permit operation of the
aeronautical mobile-satellite service -- Report and Order". (Parentheses in
original.)

International Telecommunications Union's (ITU)
WRC-03 took place in Geneva, Switzerland from June 9 through July 4, 2003. The conference
addressed a large number of issues, and adopted its "Final Acts".
Two items addressed by the conference particularly affect information technology. One
item pertains to allocating spectrum in the 5 GHz band for use by unlicensed devices,
including, but not limited to, WiFi devices. Another item pertains to allocating
spectrum for broadband access by passengers and crew on commercial aircraft.

The resolution
adopted by the WRC-03 on spectrum for unlicensed devices, and that is a part of
the Final Acts, parallels the proposal contained in the FCC's NPRM.

And now, in the August 7 statements by the FCC and NTIA, the FCC states that it
plans to complete this NPRM in the fourth quarter of 2003.

The WRC-03 also approved a secondary allocation for aeronautical mobile satellite
services in the 14-14.5 GHz band for the provision of internet and other data
services on aircraft. Boeing plans to provide real time two way broadband
services on its aircraft for passengers and crew. However, prior to the WRC-03,
the international table of frequency allocations provided that the 14-14.5 GHz
band could not be used for "aeronautical mobile services". The WRC-03 Final Acts
deleted this exclusion.

And now, in the August 7 statements by the FCC and NTIA, the FCC states that
it plans to issue its report and order on this matter in the fourth quarter of
2003.

The House is in recess until September 3. Senate is in recess until
September 2. The Supreme Court is in recess.

Deadline to submit comments to the Federal
Communications Commision (FCC) in response to its
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) [7 pages in PDF] regarding the
draft Nationwide Agreement [28 pages in PDF] of the FCC, the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation, and the National Conference of State
Historic Preservation Officers, regarding undertakings for communications
facilities, including communications towers and antennas, under the
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). This proceeding is titled "In the
matter of Nationwide Programmatic Agreement Regarding the Section 106 National
Historic Preservation Act Review Process". It is WT Docket No. 03-128. For
more information, contact Frank Stilwell at 202 418-1892 or
fstilwel@fcc.gov. See, story titled
"FCC Announces NPRM Regarding Communications Facilities and the National
Historic Preservation Act" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 677, June 10, 2003.
See also,
notice in the Federal Register, July 9, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 131, at Pages
40876 - 40887.

Deadline to submit comments, or requests to speak at the September 2, 2003
public hearing, on the Treasury Department's
and the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
regarding regulations that "affect certain taxpayers who participate in the
transfer of stock pursuant to the exercise of incentive stock options and the
exercise of options granted pursuant to an employee stock purchase plan
(statutory options)." See,
notice in the Federal Register, June 9, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 110, at Pages 34344 - 34370.

Deadline to submit comments to the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) regarding its
document [12 pages in PDF] titled "Draft Federal Information Processing
Standard (FIPS) 199 on Standards for Security Categorization of Federal
Information and Information Systems". The NIST states that this document
"defines requirements to be used by Federal agencies to categorize information
and information systems, and to provide appropriate levels of information
security according to a range of risk levels." For more information,
contact Ron Ross at 301 975-5390 or
rross@nist.gov. See,
notice in the Federal Register, May 16, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 95, at
Pages 26573 - 26574.

8/7. Federal Reserve Board (FRB)
Governor Susan Bies
gave a
speech in Des Moines, Iowa titled "The Role of Community Bank Directors in
Strengthening Corporate Governance". She addressed, among other things, the
relationship between operational risk and information technology in community
banking.

She explained that "operational risk" is "any risk that arises from
inadequate or failed internal processes, people, or systems or from external
events. Examples of operational risk include employee fraud, customer lawsuits,
failed information system conversions, and mis-sent wires."

Bies (at
right) stated that "Operational risk has always been part of banking. But the
greater variety of products and services that banks provide, the evolution of
business processes (including substantially greater reliance on information
technology and telecommunications), and changes in the ethical environment in
which we live have all contributed to more observable exposures to this type of
risk. Many of the community bank failures in recent years have been due to
operational risks. In a few cases, dominant chief executives perpetrated frauds
by manipulating the internal controls. In others, the management information
systems necessary to monitor exposures in riskier lines of business were never
built. As a result, other managers and the boards did not have the information
necessary to monitor and understand the growing risks inherent in what appeared
to be profitable strategies." (Parentheses in original.)

People and Appointments

8/7. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
reorganized its Office of Public and Congressional Affairs (OPCA)
into two offices. Eleni Kalisch was named Assistant Director in charge of the
new Office of Congressional
Affairs (OCA). Cassandra Chandler was named Assistant Director in charge
of the new Office of Public Affairs (OPA). See, FBI
release.

More News

8/7. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Commissioner
Michael Copps issued a
release [PDF]
in which he complained about the FCC's lack of action against a sleazy
broadcaster in New York City. The release states that "Last August WNEW-FM in
New York ran an Opie & Anthony show which allegedly contained a broadcast of
sexual activity at St. Patrick’s Cathedral as part of an on-air stunt", and the
FCC has received complaints, but taken no action. Copps stated that "The time
has come for the Commission to send a message that it is serious about enforcing
the indecency laws. Yet, we continue to turn a deaf ear to the millions of
Americans who are fed up with the patently offensive programming coming their
way so much of the time." The FCC has fined Infinity Broadcasting, Inc.,
the licensee of WNEW(FM), for other evil broadcasting. See, June 6, 2002
Notice of Apparent
Liability for Forefeiture.

8/7. Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA)
stated in a release that he traveled to Costa Rica and met with members of the
Costa Rica Legislative Assembly regarding internet gambling. The release states
that "While Internet gambling is illegal in Costa Rica, there are sufficient
loopholes in the existing law to allow Internet gambling businesses to create
companies in the country which provide services to support the Internet gambling
industry. It is estimated that there are as many as 5,000 people presently
employed in these Internet gambling service jobs in Costa Rica." Rep. Goodlatte
stated that "The United States has a vested interest in seeing the government
of Costa Rica increase the oversight of these off-shore gambling sites, most of
which are doing direct business, illegally, with people in the United States ...
Any time there is such a massive unregulated flow of funds, it is ripe for
corruption and crime."

About Tech Law Journal

Tech Law Journal publishes a free access web site and
subscription e-mail alert. The basic rate for a subscription
to the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert is $250 per year. However, there
are discounts for subscribers with multiple recipients. Free one
month trial subscriptions are available. Also, free
subscriptions are available for journalists,
federal elected officials, and employees of the Congress, courts, and
executive branch. The TLJ web site is
free access. However, copies of the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert are not
published in the web site until one month after writing. See, subscription
information page.